050-NLR-NLR-V-76-S.-WINTER-Appellant-and-THE-CEYLON-ESTATE-STAFFS’-UNION-Respondent.pdf
Winter v. Ceylon Estate Staffs' Union
263
1913Present : Wijayatilake, J.
S. WINTER, Appellant, and THE CEYLON ESTATE STAFFS’UNION, Respondent
S. C. 286/71—L. T. Case No. G/5821
Labour Tribunal—Order granting relief to a workman—Requirementthat the employers should be designated without inconsistency.
Where, in an application for relief made on behalf of a workmanunder the Industrial Disputes Act, the finding of the Tribunal wasthat the employer was a Company, but an award in favour of theworkman was made against certain individuals who were namedin the application as respondents—
Held, that there was inconsistency in the order of the Tribunalas to the parties against whom the -prder could be executed.
264
WIJAYATILAK.E, J.—-Winter v. Ceylon Estate Staffs' Union
A.PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
R. de Fonseka, with Siva Rajaratnam, for the 2ndrespondent-appellant.
Applicant-respondent absent and unrepresented.
February 21, 1973. Wijayatilake, J.—
Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-appellant submitsthat the workman was in fact employed by A. W. Winter andSons Estates Limited. The notices A1 of 28.5.69 and A2 of 25.6.69confirm this fact. The learned President has also held that theworkman was in fact employed by A. W. Winter and SonsEstates Ltd. However, the Ceylon Estates Staffs’ Union appearingon behalf of the workman has named as respondents to theirApplication—
R. M. Winter,
Pillagoda Valley Estate,
Baddegama.
Sydney Winter,
Messrs. Rowlands Ltd.,
Colombo.
M. Fonseka,
Superintendent,
Pillagoda Valley Estate,
Baddegama.
Despite the fact the learned President has held that theemployer was in fact A. W. Winter and Sons Estates Ltd.,ultimately in his order he has made the award against the'res-pondents as appearing in the application. It is also submittedthat M. Fonseka was only the Acting Superintendent ofPillagoda Valley Estate.
I am inclined to agree with learned Counsel for the appellantthat there is inconsistency in the order of the learned President.The question will arise with regard to the execution of theorder made by the President, whether the Union could proceedagainst the Company or the respondents named in the applica-tion. My attention has been drawn to the judgments reported in70 N. L. R. page 279, 71 N. L. R. pages 47 and 142 and also tothe amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act 39 of 1968.
I set aside the order of the learned President subject to theright of the Union to renew their application against the properparty or parties.
The appellant shall be entitled to the costs of this appeal fixedat Rs. 100.
Order set aside.
SLRIMANE, J.—Fernando v. The Queen
265
[Court of Criminal Appeal]
Present: H. N. G. Fernando, C.J. (President),Sirimane, J., and Weeramantry, J.
W. A. FERNANDO, Appellant, and THE QUEEN, Respondent
Appeal No. 44 of 1971, with Application 63
S. C. 424/70—M. C. Chilaw, 26953
Evidence—Charge of murder—An item of evidence casting seriousdoubts on guilt of accused—Duty of prosecutor to mention it toCourt.
Where, at a trial upon an indictment for murder, extracts fromthe Police Information Book disclosed an item of evidence whichcast serious doubts on the accused person’s guilt—
Held, that, though a prosecutor is not bound to expose everyinfirmity and weakness in his case, yet when a person is broughtup on a capital charge, and there is some item of evidence whichcasts serious doubts on his guilt, it is the duty of the prosecutorto draw the attention of the trial Judge to such evidence.
A. PPEAL against a conviction at a trial before the SupremeCourt.
M.A. Mansoor (Assigned), for the accused-appellant.
J.R. M. Perera, Senior Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
Cur. adv. vult.
June 6, 1971. Sirimane, J.—
This appeal is against the conviction for murder and sentencecf death passed on the appellant.
The prosecution alleged that, around mid-night, the appellanthad entered the house of the deceased through the roof, andstruck both the deceased and his wife Maria with a blunt weapon,probably ah iron rod.
The deceased succumbed to his injuries a couple of days later.He and his wife were both over 70 years of age ; and as there wereno other inmates of that house, the prosecution case dependedmainly on the identification of the appellant by Maria. Shestated in evidence that on hearing a noise she got up, lit a lampand saw the appellant striking a blow on her husband followed
LXXVT—12
1*—A 01188—2,808 (78/09)